I would consider MacArthur's quote about the NKJV being merely a Scofield without the notes unfair to this translation. I have a great deal of respect for the translators of this version. As I shared, they remained very true to the KJV and its heritage of manuscripts from which it was compiled.
The 1611 KJV translators themselves said of the authorized version that they desired to make from several "good translations" a better. Or to use their words:
Quote
...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one priciple good one,...
The NKJV translators did update many archaic words and phraseology that is obviously outdated. But a comparison of NKJV to KJV shows that they did this with a care and respect for the original work.
They also provided an unbiased view of the various manuscript support for scriptures that they footnote and their explainations for alledged ommisions or inclusions have better documentation than what I have seen with the NIV and RSV.
The unfortunate fact is that without the original autographs, many of our Christian brothers have taken to grievousome quarrels and name calling over the issue of translations. But we can surely have an honest, open understanding of which versions are reliable and reject those that are obviously opposed to the Truth. And I suppose this must be a personal decision as forced conformity has resulted in some sad results.
